Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 591–606 | Cite as

Assessing the effect of initial vapor-phase concentrations on inhalation risks of disinfection-by-products (DBP) in multi-use shower facilities

Original Paper

Abstract

Inhalation during showering activities is a major pathway for exposure to volatile disinfection-by-products (DBPs). Disinfection-by-products such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) have been shown to significantly increase cancer risks and can also pose other health hazards. In multi-family residences and common-shower facilities located in dormitories and gymnasiums, the time-lag between showers is likely to be short and the exposure to vapor-phase DBPs may be significantly increased due to residual concentrations from earlier showering activities. Current models do not consider the impacts of the initial vapor-phase concentration on health risks to be significant. The hypothesis that non-zero initial DBP vapor-phase concentrations lead to higher exposure and health risks was evaluated here using data from the City of Corpus Christi, TX at two levels of input parameter uncertainty. The inhalation risks and hazards were found to be over 1.5 times greater for subsequent showers compared to the initial shower of the day. For non-zero initial air concentrations and triangular distribution of input parameters, the model was found to be most sensitive to the initial air concentrations, highlighting the impact of initial conditions on cumulative daily intake (CDI) and subsequently on cancer risks and hazard indices. Increasing the time-gap between showers and improving ventilation are viable solutions to contend with the increased risk. It is recommended that the effects of initial air concentrations be incorporated in future risk assessments focusing on multi-family residences in older and poor neighborhoods where single shower dwellings are more common.

Keywords

Trihalomethanes Haloacetic acids Initial concentrations Monte carlo Environmental justice Indoor air quality Modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was performed while the authors were at Texas A&M University-Kingsville. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant no. HRD-0734850: Center for Research Excellence in Science and Technology—Research on Environmental Sustainability in Semi-Arid Coastal Areas (CREST-RESSACA). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that greatly enhanced the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aguinis H, Werner S, Abbott JL, Angert C, Park JH, Kohlhausen D (2010) Customer-centric science: reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organ Res Met 13(4):515–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andelman JB (1985) Inhalation exposure in the home to volatile organic contaminants of drinking water. Sci Total Environ 47:443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aschengrau A, Zierler S, Cohen A (1993) Quality of community drinking water and the occurrence of late adverse pregnancy outcomes. Arch Environ Health 48(2):105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartell SM, Pastorok RA, Akcacaya HR, Regan H, Ferson S, Mackay C (2003) Realism and relevance of ecological models used in chemical risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 9(4):907–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu M, Gupta SK, Singh G, Mukhopadhyay U (2010) Multi-route risk assessment from trihalomethanes in drinking water supplies. Environ Monit Assess 178(1–4):121–134Google Scholar
  6. Batterman S, Huang AT, Wang SG, Zhang L (2000) Reduction of ingestion exposure to trihalomethanes due to volatilization. Environ Sci Technol 34(20):4418–4424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bove FJ, Fulcomer MC, Klotz JB, Esmart J, Dufficy EM, Savrin JE (1995) Public drinking water contamination and birth outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 141(9):850–862Google Scholar
  8. Bowden DJ, Clegg SL, Brimblecombe P (1998a) The Henry’s law constant of trihaloacetic acid. Water Air Soil Poll 101(1–4):197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowden DJ, Clegg SL, Brimblecombe P (1998b) The Henry’s Law constants of haloacetic acids. Atmos Chem 29(1):85–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. California Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Preliminary endangerment assement guidance manual, Sacramento, US. State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Second PrintingGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapra S, Canale R (2008) Numerical methods for engineers. McGraw-Hill, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen MJ, Wu KY, Chang L (2003) A new approach to estimating the volatilization rates of shower water-contained volatile organic compounds during showering. Atmos Environ 37(31):4325–4333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chowdhury S, Champagne P (2009) Risk from exposure to trihalomethanes during shower: probabilistic assessment and control. Sci Total Environ 407:1570–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chowdhury S, Hall K (2010) Human health risk assessment from exposure to trihalomethanes in Canadian cities. Environ Int 36:453–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fairley P, Parker DA (2004) Review of hot water draw profiles used in performance analysis of residential hot water systems. Florida Solar Energy Center/University of Central Florida, Cocoa, FLGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman K, Heaney J, Morales M, Switt R (2010) Water use and demand management options for the multi-family residential sector. Florida Water Resources Conference, Orlando, 2010Google Scholar
  17. Garcia-Diaz JC, Gozalvez-Zafrilla JM (2010) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in code environmental model for risk assessments from industrial source complex. Sixth international conference on sensitivity analysis of model output. Elsevier 2:7656–7657Google Scholar
  18. Giardino NJ, Esmen NA, Andelman JB (1992) Modeling volatilization of trichloroethylene from a domestic shower spray: the role of drop-size distribution. Environ Sci Technol 26:1602–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamidin N, Yu QJ, Connell DW (2008) Human health risk assessment of chlorinated disinfection by-products in drinking water using a probabilistic approach. Water Res 42:3263–3274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iman RL, Conover WJ (1987) A measure of top-down correlation. Technometrics 29(3):351–357Google Scholar
  21. Jo WK, Weisel CP, Lioy PJ (1990) Routes of chloroform exposure and body burden from showering with chlorinated tap water. Risk Anal 10:581–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johansson A, Wahlstrom A, Pettersson U, Berggren T (2007) Measurements of water use in eight dwellings, by quantity and time. The Swedish Energy Agency, EskilstunaGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirk RE (1996) Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educ Psychol Meas 56(5):746–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuo HW, Chiang TF, Lai JS, Chan CC, Wang JD (1998) Estimates of cancer risk from chloroform exposure during showering in Taiwan. Sci Total Environ 218:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Legay C, Rodriguez MJ, Sadiq R, Serodes J, Levallois P, Proulx F (2011) Spatial variations of human health risk associated with exposure to chlorination by-products occurring in drinking water. Environ Manage 92:892–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Little JC (1992) Applying the two-resistance theory to contaminant volatilization in showers. Environ Sci Technol 26(7):1341–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loh M, Coghlan P (2003) Domestic water use study: in Perth, Western Australia 1998–2001. Water Corporation, Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynberg M, Nuckols JR, Laglois P, Ashley D, Singer P, Mendola P, Wilkes C, Krapfl H, Miles E, Speight V, Lin B, Small L, Miles A, Bonin M, Zeitz P, Tadkod A, Henry J, Forrester M (2001). Assessing exposure to disinfection by-products in women of reproductive age living in Corpus Christi, Texas and Cobb County, Georgia: descriptive results and methods. Environ Health Persp 109(6):597–604Google Scholar
  29. McKone TE (1987) Human exposure to volatile organic compounds in household tap water:the indoor inhalation pathway. Environ Sci Technol 21:1194–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morris RD, Audet A, Angellilo IF, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F (1992) Chlorination, chlorination by-products, and cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 82(7):955–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation and confirmation of numerical models in the Earth sciences. Science 263(5147):641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pardakhti AR, Bidhendi GRN, Torabian A, Karbassi A, Yunesian M (2011) Comparative cancer risk assessment of THMs in drinking water from well water sources and surface water sources. Environ Monit Assess 179(1–4):499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reif JS, Hatch MC, Bracken M, Holmes LB, Schwetz BA, Singer PC (1996) Reproductive and developmental effects of disinfection by-products in drinking water. Environ Health Perspect 104(10):1056–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sander R (1999) Compilation of Henry’s law constants for inorganic and organic species of potential importance in environmental chemistry. http://www.mpch-mainz.mpg.de/~sander/res/henry.html. Accessed 8 Jan 2011
  35. Singer PC, DePaz E, Ashley DL, Blount B, Nuckols JR, Wilkes CR, et al. (2003) Impact of trihalomethane concentrations in tap water and water use activities on biological levels of trihalomethanes. In: Proceedings of the Water Quality Technology Conference, American Water Works Association, 2–6 November 2003, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  36. Staudinger J, Roberts PV (1996) A critical review of Henry’s law constants for environmental applications. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 44:205–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stephens MA (1974) EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. Amer Statist Assoc 69(347):730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tan YM, Lao KH, Clewell JH (2007) Reverse dosimetry: interpreting trihalomethanes biomonitoring data using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 17:591–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thiriat N, Paulus H, Le Bot B, Gloronnec P (2009) Exposure to inhaled THM: comparison of continuous and event-specific exposure assessment for epidemiologic purposes. Environ Int 35(7):1086–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Uddameri V (2003) Using the analytic hierarchy process for selecting an appropriate fate and transport model for risk-based decision making at hazardous waste sites. Pract Period Hazard Tox Radioact Waste Manage 7:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Toxicological Review of Dichloroacetic Acid. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  42. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Toxicological Review of Trichloroacetic Acid. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  43. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Benchmark dose technical guidance. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  44. Veissman W, Hammer MJ, Perez EM, Chadik PA (2009) Water Supply and Pollution Control. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  45. Viana RB, Cavalcante RM, Braga FMG, Viana A, de Araujo JC, Nascimento RF, Pimentel AS (2009) Risk assessment of trihalomethanes from tap water in Fortaleza, Brazil. Environ Monit Assess 151(1–4):317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang GS, Deng YC, Lin TF (2007) Cancer risk assessment from trihalomethanes in drinking water. Sci Tot Environ 387(1–3):86–95Google Scholar
  47. Widen J, Lundh M, Vassileva I, Dahlquist E, Ellagard K, Wackelgard E (2009) Constructing load profiles for household electricity and hot water from time-use data—modelling approach and validation. Energ Buildings 41(7):753–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilkes CR, Small MJ, Andelman JB, Giardino NJ, Marshall J (1992) Inhalation exposure model for volatile chemicals from indoor uses of water. Atmos Environ 26A(12):2227–2236Google Scholar
  49. World Health Organization (2000) International programme on chemical safety—Environmental Health Criteria 216. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu X, Weisel CP (2003) Inhalation exposure to haloacetic acids and haloketones during showering. Environ Sci Technol 37(3):569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Department of Engineering and PhysicsTarleton State UniversityStephenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations